B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THE legal representatives of the original judgment debtor Satya Narayan Mussaddi have filed this present revision. The facts leading to this revision are as follows :-the opposite party decree holder instituted the title suit No. 2104/80 and 2105/80 against the original judgment debtor Satya Narayan Mussaddi and one Tilok Chand Mussaddi for eviction and others ancillary reliefs. In the aforementioned suit both the defendants contested the same by filing the written statement. The suit was however, decreed on contest against them. The original judgment debtor preferred an appeal in this court being Appeal No. 225 and 226 of 1987 which was also dismissed. Pursuant to the original decree passed by the Trial Court the opposite party levied execution against the original judgment debtor. The revisionist allegedly received an information that the opposite party decree holders started execution against him and substituted the name of the legal representatives of the original judgment debtor without service of notice. It is stated by the petitioner that since the legal representatives of the original judgment debtor Satya Narayan Mussaddi had not been made parties in appeal before this Court : the final judgment passed by it is a nullity and consequently, the opposite party decree holders are not legally competent to proceed with the execution case. It is stated that the original judgment debtor Satya Narayan Mussaddi died on 8. 6. 91 and the judgment having been passed after his death i. e. on 22. 7. 91 is patently an illegality which is unenforceable in law. The learned trial court overrulling the objection of the petitioner allowed the prayer of the opposite party decree holders for the grant of police aid. ( 2 ) MR. Roy Choudhury contended in support of the revisional application that the Bailiff who was deputed for effecting delivery of the suit property has not stated in his evidence that there was disturbance of public peace. It is further contended that even in the petition filed by the opposite party decree holder there is no mention of disturbance of public peace. Another question was mooted by the revisionist that though the application has been captioned under section 208 of the High Court Rules, it should have been filed under order 21 Rule 97. It is further contended that even in the petition filed by the opposite party decree holder there is no mention of disturbance of public peace. Another question was mooted by the revisionist that though the application has been captioned under section 208 of the High Court Rules, it should have been filed under order 21 Rule 97. The application should have been considered under the provision of Order 21 Rule 101 C. P. C. In face of this inherent defects the learned executing court could not have mechanically granted police aid to the decree-holders. ( 3 ) MR. B. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder opposite parties, while repelling the contention of the petitioner highlighted that the Bailiff has stated that there was beach of peace: while he made an attempt to deliver the suit properties to the decree holders. ( 4 ) UNDISPUTED facts emerged from the contention of the parties are as follows: that the decree holder obtained a decree for recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises at 129a Muktaram Babu Street by evicting the defendants their men, agents and servants therefrom. The present Title Execution Case No. 98/85 had been levied by the decree holders. The defendants preferred an appeal against the said decree before this court in F. A. No. 226 of 1987 which was stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 22nd July, 1991 and allowed the original judgment debtors to vacate the suit premises within two months therefrom. One of the defendants Satya Narayan Mussaddi who was the predessor- in-interest of the revisionist allegedly died on 8. 6. 91 leaving Smt. Magit Bal Mussaddi, Smt. Annapurna Mussaddi, Sew Kumar Mussaddi and Smt. Mina Devi Kedia as his legal heirs and representatives who were substituted as judgment debtors 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c) and 1 (d) respectively. The legal representatives of the original judgment debtor Satya Narayan Mussaddi were noticed in the execution case and accordingly had been substituted. The contention raised by Mr. Roy Choudhury that the appellate decree is unenforceable in law bears no substance inasmuch as Satya Narayan Mussaddi who was one of the appellants in Appeal No. 225 and 226 of 1987 is said to have been dead on 8. 6. 91. The contention raised by Mr. Roy Choudhury that the appellate decree is unenforceable in law bears no substance inasmuch as Satya Narayan Mussaddi who was one of the appellants in Appeal No. 225 and 226 of 1987 is said to have been dead on 8. 6. 91. The legal representatives after prosecuting the appeal without filling an application to be impleaded and their appeal after being dismissed could not have raised a point that the appellate Courts decree is unenforceable. In this case, the appellate court only confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court which is now sought to be executed. in the above background, the point raised by Mr. Roy Choudhury that the decree is not capable of being executed appears to be lack of merit. ( 5 ) THE opposite party decree holders filed an application under Rules 208 of Civil Rules and Order for grant of the police aid. The decree holders in their application for police aid have, however, asserted that one of the legal representatives of the original Judgment debtor Shib Kumar Mussaddi had put up strong resistance while bailiff went to deliver the suit property and unless police aid is granted to him there is likelyhood of breach of peace. It is further claimed that the register being the legal representative of the Judgment debtor shall be bound by the decree. Before allowing the prayer for police aid, the executing court will have to be satisfied that there is unlawful resistance by the judgment debtor or any other person who shall be bound by the decree. ( 6 ) WHILE examining the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to quote the provision of Rule 208 of C. R. O. "208. (1) A decree-holder praying for police help in execution shall state in his application the full reasons thereof, supported, if required, by an affidavit. The Court may further examine the decree-holder or such other persons as it thinks fit touching the necessity of police help. (1) A decree-holder praying for police help in execution shall state in his application the full reasons thereof, supported, if required, by an affidavit. The Court may further examine the decree-holder or such other persons as it thinks fit touching the necessity of police help. If upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the presiding Judge is of the clear opinion that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that execution will not be effected without serious danger to the public peace, he may after recording his reason for so doing, make a request to the Superintendent of Police of the district for such police aid as the latter may be able to give in the execution of the writ. It is to be understood that police help is to be regarded as an extreme step and it should be recommended unless the court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave emergency. (2) The requisition to the Superintendent of Police should state in brief the need for such aid, the number and rank of men required, the nature of the process and the place where it is to be executed. It will be for the Superintendent of Police to decide how best and when he will be in a position to offer the help sought. (A) Costs for police help shall be charged in executing decrees in cases where such help is considered necessary because of apprehensions of violence or obstruction from the judgment-debtor himself. The party concerned shall be ordered to deposit such costs for the service as the Superintendent of Police my require under the rules of the department. (B) Costs for police aid shall not be levied in cases where police help is required because of conditions of a general character, such as the locality being in disturbed state or a class of people, similarly situated, being likely to make a common cause with the judgment-debtor and resist execution. (C) In cases where a levy of costs is ordered, such costs shall be added to the costs of execution. Note 1: It shall be the duty of the Court to decide in each case under which category it falls, that is whether police aid should be given under clause (a) above in which case the party has to deposit necessary costs or under clause (b) in which case no costs are to be charged. Note 1: It shall be the duty of the Court to decide in each case under which category it falls, that is whether police aid should be given under clause (a) above in which case the party has to deposit necessary costs or under clause (b) in which case no costs are to be charged. Note 2 : Police aid shall not be requisitioned or taken in effecting the arrest of judgment-debtors unless it is clear that no other means will possibly achieve the required result. ( 7 ) ON a careful reading of the impugned order it is clear that the executing court has meticulously examined the legal representatives contention and recorded an observation that the judgment debtors had previous notice about the execution case. In that view of the matter it is not open to the revisionist again to raise the same point in this court. ( 8 ) ONE point needs to be considered is whether the prayer of the decree holder for grant of police aid could have been allowed. The learned executing court had also scrupulously examined the evidence of decree holder qua testimony of the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. It was noticed that while the bailiff made an attempt to effect, delivery of the suit house to the decree holders, the judgment debtor 1 (c) did not pay any heed to that and instead he offered physical resistance to the bailiff. The statement of P. W. 2 who is the bailiff in the present case which is embodied in the impugned order that the unruly behaviour of the legal representative 1 (c) was such the bailiff was always apprehensive of great danger of breach of peace and for which he could not grant delivery of possession of the house to the Decree holders. It further appears from the record that the bailiff endorsed such fact at the spot on the writ of delivery of possession in presence of the witnesses. The executing court after carefully examining the statement of the witnesses was satisfied regarding the unlawfully conduct of the judgment debtor 1 (c ). In this case, both the witnesses on behalf of the decree holder and also the judgment debtor had been subjected to thorough cress examination and decree holders did not leave any stone unturned to prove the requiste elements claiming police aid. In this case, both the witnesses on behalf of the decree holder and also the judgment debtor had been subjected to thorough cress examination and decree holders did not leave any stone unturned to prove the requiste elements claiming police aid. ( 9 ) IN this case, the right to ownership of the property has been already held in favour of the opposite party decree holders which carries with it the right to its enjoyment, right to its access and of other beneficial enjoyment incidental to the property. If any obstruction or hindrance is caused in its enjoyment or use, the owner has to be provided with such remedy which would remove any such unlawful obstruction or hindrance. The contention raised by Mr. Roy Choudhury that an application ought to have been filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 cuts no ice since in the instant case, the resistance was put up by one of the judgment debtors while effecting delivery of possession. The decree holder can resort to his right seeking police help under rule 208 of the High Court Rules. ( 10 ) IN the above conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer any per se illegality so as to be interfered within this revision. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Application dismissed